The International Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma Project is a collaborative effort designed to gain better understanding of peripheral T-cell and natural killer (NK)/T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs). A total of 22 institutions in North America, Europe, and Asia submitted clinical and pathologic information on PTCLs diagnosed and treated at their respective centers. Of the 1314 eligible patients, 181 had anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL; 13.8%) on consensus review: One hundred fifty-nine had systemic ALCL (12.1%) and 22 had primary cutaneous ALCL (1.7%). Patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase–positive (ALK+) ALCL had a superior outcome compared with those with ALK− ALCL (5-year failure-free survival [FFS], 60% vs 36%; P = .015; 5-year overall survival [OS], 70% vs 49%; P = .016). However, contrary to prior reports, the 5-year FFS (36% vs 20%; P = .012) and OS (49% vs 32%; P = .032) were superior for ALK− ALCL compared with PTCL, not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS). Patients with primary cutaneous ALCL had a very favorable 5-year OS (90%), but with a propensity to relapse (5-year FFS, 55%). In summary, ALK− ALCL should continue to be separated from both ALK+ ALCL and PTCL-NOS. Although the prognosis of ALK− ALCL appears to be better than that for PTCL-NOS, it is still unsatisfactory and better therapies are needed. Primary cutaneous ALCL is associated with an indolent course.

Approximately 5% to 10% of diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCLs) harbor an MYC oncogene rearrangement (MYC+). The prognostic significance of MYC+ DLBCL was determined in an unselected population of patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL treated with rituximab in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone chemotherapy (R-CHOP). Using a Vysis break-apart fluorescence in situ hybridization probe, 12 of 135 (8.8%) cases of MYC+ DLBCL were identified that had no defining high-risk features. MYC+ DLBCL was associated with an inferior 5-year progression-free survival (66% vs 31%, P = .006) and overall survival (72% vs 33%, P = .016). Multivariate analysis confirmed the prognostic importance of MYC for both progression-free survival (hazard ratio = 3.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.49-7.21, P = .003) and overall survival (hazard ratio = 2.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-6.95, P = .011). Cases of MYC+ DLBCL also had a higher risk of central nervous system relapse (P = .023), independent of other risk factors. The diagnosis of MYC+ DLBCL is likely underappreciated; and given the lack of defining risk factors, fluorescence in situ hybridization for MYC rearrangements should be performed in all patients with DLBCL. In the R-CHOP treatment era, MYC+ DLBCLs have an inferior prognosis. Treatment regimens similar to those used in Burkitt lymphoma may be more appropriate in this patient population and need to be prospectively tested.

Background: All peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) diagnosed at a single institution were evaluated to determine the unique clinical features and outcome of specific entities and test the predictive validity of the International Prognostic Index (IPI). Patients and methods: Cases of PTCL seen at the British Columbia Cancer Agency between 1981 and 2000 were identified. Pathologic material was re-assessed and classified according to the WHO classification, and patients were staged and treated uniformly according to era-specific guidelines. In total, there were 199 patients with PTCL and the most common subtypes were peripheral T-cell lymphoma unspecified (PTCL-US) (59%), anaplastic large-cell lymphoma, systemic type (ALCL) (17%) and extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma, nasal and nasal-type (NASAL) (9%). Most patients were treated with CHOP-type chemotherapy. Results: Three distinct prognostic subgroups were notable on survival analysis: favorable (cutaneous ALCL), 5-year overall survival (OS) 78%; intermediate [PTCL, ALCL and angioimmunoblastic lymphoma (AILT)], 5-year OS 35–43%; unfavorable [NASAL and enteropathy-type T-cell lymphoma (ETTL)], 5-year OS 22–24%. Furthermore, in PTCL-US and ALCL clinical separation of patients into good risk (IPI 0,1) and poor risk (IPI ≥2) subsets was demonstrated. Conclusions: A large proportion of PTCL patients have poor risk disease and/or a histologically aggressive subtype with frequent relapse and unfavorable outcome. For these patients, treatment with CHOP chemotherapy is only minimally effective and new strategies need to be developed, an effort that will require a multi-institution international collaboration due to the rarity of most subtypes.

PURPOSE: The CheckMate 066 trial investigated nivolumab monotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with previously untreated BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma. Five-year results are presented herein. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, phase III study, 418 patients with previously untreated, unresectable, stage III/IV, wild-type BRAF melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or dacarbazine 1,000 mg/m² every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. RESULTS: Patients were followed for a minimum of 60 months from the last patient randomly assigned (median follow-up, 32.0 months for nivolumab and 10.9 months for dacarbazine). Five-year OS rates were 39% with nivolumab and 17% with dacarbazine; PFS rates were 28% and 3%, respectively. Five-year OS was 38% in patients randomly assigned to dacarbazine who had subsequent therapy, including nivolumab (n = 37). ORR was 42% with nivolumab and 14% with dacarbazine; among patients alive at 5 years, ORR was 81% and 39%, respectively. Of 42 patients treated with nivolumab who had a complete response (20%), 88% (37 of 42) were alive as of the 5-year analysis. Among 75 nivolumab-treated patients alive and evaluable at the 5-year analysis, 83% had not received subsequent therapy; 23% were still on study treatment, and 60% were treatment free. Safety analyses were similar to the 3-year report. CONCLUSION: Results from this 5-year analysis confirm the significant benefit of nivolumab over dacarbazine for all end points and add to the growing body of evidence supporting long-term survival with nivolumab mono-therapy. Survival is strongly associated with achieving a durable response, which can be maintained after treatment discontinuation, even without subsequent systemic therapies.

Background: Primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) is a distinct clinico-pathological subtype of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). The optimal treatment is unknown, with some studies suggesting a superior outcome with dose-intensive chemotherapy regimens, and the role of radiotherapy remains ill-defined. Patients and methods: The British Columbia Cancer Agency lymphoma database was searched and records reviewed to identify those patients presenting with a prominent mediastinal mass and considered to be PMBCL based on the current REAL/WHO classifications. Patients were treated based on era-specific BCCA guidelines (1980–1992 MACOPB/VACOPB; 1992–2001 CHOP-type; 2001–present CHOP-R). Beginning in January 1998 involved-field radiotherapy was recommended to be routinely administered following chemotherapy. Prior to this, use of radiotherapy was individualized in advanced disease. Results: In total, 153 patients with newly diagnosed PMBCL were identified between 28 July 1980 and 30 June 2003. The median age was 37 years (range 13–82) and the majority had stage I/II (74%), bulky mediastinal disease (75%). Overall (OS) and progression-free (PFS) survival at 5 years for the entire cohort were 75% and 69%, respectively. In direct comparison with a cohort of patients with DLBCL (n = 1273), OS (P = 10⁻⁴) and PFS (P = 0.0001) favored PMBCL. The age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (aaIPI) was not predictive of survival (P = 0.18). Five-year OS in patients <65 years old treated with MACOPB/VACOPB, CHOP-R and CHOP-type was 87%, 81% and 71% respectively (P = 0.048). In pair-wise survival comparisons, only MACOPB/VACOPB and CHOP-type treated patients were significantly different (P = 0.016). In Cox multiple regression analysis, poor performance status remained the only predictor of survival, with treatment received demonstrating a trend to worse outcome for patients treated with CHOP-type regimens (P = 0.09). In an intention-to-treat analysis comparing the era before radiotherapy was routinely administered with after, there was no significant difference in 5-year PFS (74% versus 62%; P = 0.09) or OS (78% versus 69%; P = 0.14). Conclusions: In this single institution, population-based retrospective study, we found that PMBCL patients have excellent survival rates and a distinct plateau is observed in PFS, in striking comparison to DLBCL. The aaIPI was not predictive of survival in this population, suggesting that other prognostic models may be better suited for risk stratification. Dose-intensified chemotherapy with MACOPB or VACOPB demonstrated a trend to superior outcome over CHOP-type chemotherapy. However, further randomized studies are needed and the impact of rituximab on these comparisons must be considered. Finally, the routine addition of radiotherapy does not improve survival.